y ,
Rachmat Nurcahyo,M.A.
NUEDC Kopertis X Sumatera Barat, Jambi,
Riau, Kepri, 2012



Introduction to BP
Role Fulfillment
Adjudication






Only 1 motion is announced for each round.
All teams have
15 minutes
to casebuild
h
i
b ild started
d right
i h
after the Motion Launch
The government must propose the motion.
The opposition must negate the motion and present an
alternative (ie. the status quo or counter model).
Each speaker has 7 minutes to speak.
Points of Information (POI) are allowed between the 2nd
and 6th minute.
OG – Prime Minister
OO – Leader of Opposition
OG – Deputy
D
t P
Prime
i
Minister
Mi i t
OO – Deputy Leader of Opposition
CG – Government Member
CO – Opposition Member
CG – Government Whip
CO – Opposition Whip
p the debate. This includes:
PM has to set up
 Presenting a context/problem.
 Providing a clear and reasonable definition (ie.
debatable and within the context/spirit of the
motion).
 Setting parameters of the debate – what
exactly
l will
ll we b
be talking
lk
about?
b
 Propose a solution (model if needed), and
explain how it solves the problem.

 Essentially, when the PM sits down,
everyone should have a solid idea of what
the
h debate
d b
will
ill b
be about.
b
p
p is done p
p y
It is VERY important
that set up
properly,
because:
 A poor set up tends to result in a messy/bad debate.
OG gets blamed for this!
 A poor set up makes it easier for the closing teams
to re-characterize the debate to their advantage. OG
risks getting ‘left out’ of the debate.
 A clear set up makes the OG memorable!
 PM has to indicate the team split – ie
ie. what PM and
DPM will talk about (has to be different and
consistent).
 PM has to provide arguments in support of the
motion.

p a clear
The LO main role is to set up
response from the Opposition bench that
creates clash in the debate.
 Problem doesn’t exist (status quo).
 Different cause.
 Solution won
won’tt work
work.
 Solution has other harms.
 Provide better solution (counter model)
model).
 LO may challenge the PM’s definition, but
only if the definition is unreasonable.

q
LO is also required
to:
 Rebut the PM arguments.
 Provide substantive arguments against the
motion.
 Indicate the team split – ie. what the LO and
DLO will talk about (has to be different and
consistent).



The DPM roles are:
s arguments.
◦ Deliver rebuttals to LO
LO’s
◦ Support the arguments made by PM, and respond
to the rebuttals from LO (refutation).
◦ Bring more arguments to support the motion.
At the end of the speech, briefly sums up the OG
case:
◦ What are the key ideas in the debate?
◦ How does OG approach the debate?
◦ What are the arguments OG wants to be
remembered by?
y
◦ Wraps up the opening half.


The DLO roles are:
◦ Deliver rebuttals to OG’s arguments.
◦ Support the arguments made by OL, and respond to
the rebuttals from OG (refutation).
◦ Bring
g more arguments
g
against
g
the motion.
At the end of the speech, briefly sums up the OO
case:
◦ What are the key ideas in the debate?
◦ How does OO approach the debate?
◦ What are the arguments OO wants to be
remembered
b
db
by??
◦ Wraps up the opening half.

GM and OM have generally similar roles:
◦ Rebut all arguments from the opposing bench
that came in the opening
p
g half.
◦ OM rebuts GM and opening half (OG).
◦ Deliver ‘extensions’.
 Move the debate to a different area – ie. new
arguments, deeper analysis.
R
Remain
i consistent
i t t with
ith th
the opening
i
h
half
lf
(OG/OO).
distinct without
 Goal: makes their team distinct,
contradicting!
y similar roles:
GW and OW have g
generally
 Rebut the arguments from all opposing speakers
that came before them.
 GW rebuts OM, DLO, LO.
 OW rebuts GW, GM, DPM, PM.
 Support
S
t their
th i team’s
t
’ extensions.
t
i
 Using extensions to rebut arguments.
 Incorporate extensions into each major point of
contention/clash.

p y speech.
p
 Reply
 Summarize the entire debate.
 Highlight the important roles of the closing
team in the debate.
 No new materials/arguments!
“Which team
contributes the most
to the debate?”


OG (Opening Government: Prime Minister + Deputy PM)
◦ Problem – clear? is the scope realistic?
◦ Definition – debatable? reasonable?
◦ Solution/Model – sufficient to solve the problem?
◦ Arguments
◦ Rebuttals
OO (Opening Opposition: )
◦ Response – clear?
◦ Solution/Counter model (if any) – sufficient to solve the
problem?
◦ Arguments
◦ Rebuttals

CG/CO
◦ Extension – distinct? new? relevant?
◦ How they present the extension
 Flag with POI?
 Mention as ‘important’/ ‘key issue’ at the start of the
speech?
 Incorporate in rebuttals?
b
l
◦ Rebuttals
 Strong?
g
 Supporting extension?
◦ Are they successful in making their materials the most
important and relevant in the debate?


Relevant v. Irrelevant
◦ Focus
on contribution
and
F
ib i
d consistency!
i
!
 Does the argument contribute to achieve the goal in the
debate?
 Is the argument consistent with how the debate is
characterized (problem/actors/etc.)?
Strong v. Weak
◦ AREL
◦ Focus on the reasoning!
 Deductive  all premises must be proven conclusively.
 Inductive  credibility/persuasiveness of examples must be
proven.
◦ Use of compelling supporting data/facts.

Significant v. Insignificant
◦ Focus on importance!
◦ Is the argument substantially discussed by teams in the
debate?
◦ Did the argument manage to stay in the debate 
‘airtime’ is usually a good indicator.

Does it attack the reasoning?
◦ Deductive
 Should not target the conclusion.
 Target the premises, prove them false – ie. through
argumentations, not mere statements.
◦ Inductive
 Attack the credibility of the examples – ie. by arguing that
the examples given are false/don’t apply, not merely
giving counter examples.
examples
 Attack the relationship between examples and conclusion
– ie. by showing there are other factors at play.

LISTEN!!!

Don’tt think for the debaters!
Don
◦ Awareness  what happens in the debate v.
what happens in your head.
◦ Don’t finish their arguments for them.
◦ Don’t rebut their arguments.
d tips: in your note, make
k ab
◦ Handy
box ffor your
thoughts.

Judging is not coaching!
◦ Don’t expect arguments.
◦ Don’t try to think of better arguments the
debaters could have presented.

M
Manner
– Matter
M tt
◦ Don’t automatically buy arguments just
because of good manner
manner.
◦ If the manner is bad, don’t strain yourself to
understand the matter.
◦ Confer and discuss the debate with the other
adjudicators.
 The adjudication panel should attempt to agree on
the adjudication of the debate
debate. Therefore
Therefore, confer in
a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.
◦ Determine the ranking of the teams.
◦ Determine the
h teams’’ grades.
d
◦ Determine the speakers’ scores.
◦ Provide a verbal adjudication
adjudication.
◦ Complete documentation required by the
tournament.

Teams should be ranked from first p
place to
fourth place.
◦
◦
◦
◦

1st – 3 points
2nd – 2 points
3rd – 1 points
4th – 0 point.
Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings.
rankings
◦ When a unanimous decision cannot be reached after
conferral, the decision of the majority will determine the
rankings
rankings.
◦ When a majority decision cannot be reached, the chair of
the panel of adjudicators will determine the rankings.

The panel of adjudicators should agree
upon the grade awarded to each team.
Each adjudicator marks each team at their
own discretion, but the marks should fall
within the agreed grade for the team.
REMEMBER : The Higher the Rank, the higher the
score, but the grade is not necessarily the
B t
Best.


p
Grades are interpreted
as:
◦ A = 180 – 200.
Excellent to flawless. The standard you would expect to see from a team at
the Semi Final/Grand Final of the tournament. The team has many
strengths and few,
few if any,
any weaknesses.
weaknesses
◦ B = 160 – 179
Above average to very good. The standard you would expect to see from a
team at the finals level or in contention to make to the finals. The team has
clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.
weaknesses
◦ C = 140 – 159
Average. The team has strengths and weaknesses in roughly equal
proportions.
20 – 139
39
◦ D = 120
Poor to below average. The team has clear problems and some minor
strengths.
◦ E = 100 – 119
Very poor. The team has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any,
strengths.


j
p
Each adjudicator
marks individual speakers
at their discretion, but must ensure that the
aggregate points of the team members is
within
ithi th
the agreed
d grade
d ffor th
thatt tteam.
Individual marks are interpreted as:
◦ A = 90 –100.
–100 Excellent to flawless
flawless, standard of a speaker in the
final of the tournament.
◦ B = 80 – 89. Above average to very good, standard of a speaker
in contention to make to the finals.
◦ C = 70 – 79. Average, weaknesses and strengths in equal
proportion.
◦ D = 60 – 69. Poor to below average, clear problem.
◦ E = 50
0 – 59.
9 Poor, ffundamental
d
l fl
flaws.






Announce ranking.
Provide general assessment of the debate.
Explain the determinant considerations for the
ranking.
ranking
Go team per team:
◦ Explain the reasons behind their ranking (in
comparison to how other teams rank).
◦ Explain what they did well and what they lacked.
◦ Provide suggestions of what they can improve in
next debates.
Keep it concise!
Offer personal assessment outside the room.